By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III
FEBRUARY has always been known as “love month” and this week is “heart’s week” which highlights on Sunday- Valentine’s day.
Affairs of the heart are always a titillating discussion especially when the subject of court litigation.
This article is a survey of court cases about love and marital relationships that range from those forbidden by company policy, to those that had blossomed under controversial circumstances, and then there are those that had gone awry to the point of placing the protagonists in a web of legal entanglements. These cases had reached the courts and the partners embroiled in litigation for what were supposed to be purely private affairs but they had to be publicized because the courts were called upon to resolve them from a legal standpoint.
The first case involves a teacher-student relationship.
They fell in love while he was her student. She was 30 years old; while he, only 16. They got married in civil rites where the student’s mother gave her consent thereto (in 1976, a 16-year-old can legally marry with the consent of his/ her parents). But the school where she was teaching dismissed her for immorality. The Supreme Court disagreed, thus:
“With the finding that there is no substantial evidence of the imputed immoral acts, it follows that the alleged violation of the Code of Ethics governing school teachers would have no basis. Private respondent utterly failed to show that petitioner took advantage of her position to court her student. If the two eventually fell in love, despite the disparity in their ages and academic levels, this only lends substance to the truism that the heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know. But, definitely, yielding to this gentle and universal emotion is not to be so casually equated with immorality. The deviation of the circumstances of their marriage from the usual societal pattern cannot be considered as a defiance of contemporary social mores”.(EVELYN CHUA-QUA, v. HON. JACOBO C. CLAVE, in his capacity as Presidential Executive Assistant, and TAY TUNG HIGH SCHOOL, INC., G.R. No. 49549 August 30, 1990).
The second case is a disbarment case against a lawyer who had sexual relations with a woman who was of legal age. Both were single. When he refused to marry her, she filed an administrative case with the Supreme Court against him for immorality. The Supreme Court did not find anything immoral with their relationship and ruled in this manner:
“The evidence adduced by the complainant has failed to establish any cause for disciplinary action against the respondent. As the Solicitor General said in his report, “From all indications, there is little room for doubt that she filed his disbarment case not in redress of a wrong, for there was no wrong committed. It was a voluntary act of indiscretion between two consenting adults who were fully aware of the consequences of their deed and for which they were responsible only to their own private consciences”.(PILAR ABAIGAR v. DAVID D.C. PAZ, A.M. No. 997 September 10, 1979).
When love is talked about, marriage usually follows in the normal run of things. And in regard to marriage, a heart-rending ruling was handed down by the United States Supreme Court through the pen of Justice Anthony Kennedy describing marriage in this fashion: “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were”.
Indeed, when two persons are joined by marriage, the two become one. This is not only a legal truism- it is also biblical: “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Matthew 19:6).
Yet love is not the only consideration for marriage. “Thus, marriages entered into for other purposes, limited or otherwise, such as convenience, companionship, money, status and title provided that they comply with all the legal requisites are equally valid. Love, though the ideal consideration in a marriage contract, is not the only valid cause for marriage. (Republic v. Albios, G.R. No. 198780, October 16, 2013; Rolando D. Cortez v. Luz Cortez, G.R. No. 224638. April 10, 2019).
Too, the sanctity of marriage is protected in the following cases, to wit:
a) A jealous wife who rummaged through the office files of her husband and discovered damning evidence of infidelity, was disallowed by the Supreme Court from using them in court for breaching his right to privacy in Zulueta v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 699. The act of poaching into the private files of the husband by the wife was considered as offensive to the harmony of their marriage;
b) In succession, no condition prohibiting marriage by the heir is allowed to be imposed in a last will and testament pursuant to Article 874, New Civil Code, viz:“An absolute condition not to contract a first or subsequent marriage shall be considered as not written unless such condition has been imposed on the widow or widower by the deceased spouse, or by the latter’s ascendants or descendants”;
c) A policy in an airline company requiring flight attendants to remain single and once they get married and more so become pregnant, they will be deemed dismissed from work, was declared as illegal in Zialcita v. PAL, Case No. RO4-3-3398-76; February 20, 1977; and,
d) A foreigner who lured a Filipina to have sexual congress with him upon a promise of marriage which he did not keep, thereby disrespecting the sanctity of marriage, was held liable for damages. Thus: “Thus, his profession of love and promise to marry were empty words directly intended to fool, dupe, entice, beguile and deceive the poor woman into believing that indeed, he loved her and would want her to be his life’s partner. His was nothing but pure lust which he wanted satisfied by a Filipina who honestly believed that by accepting his proffer of love and proposal of marriage, she would be able to enjoy a life of ease and security. Petitioner clearly violated the Filipino’s concept of morality and brazenly defied the traditional respect Filipinos have for their women. It can even be said that the petitioner committed such deplorable acts in blatant disregard of Article 19 of the Civil Code which directs every person to act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his obligations. No foreigner must be allowed to make a mockery of our laws, customs and traditions.(GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MARILOU T. GONZALES, G.R. No. 97336 February 19, 1993).
From the legal conundrum created by the foregoing cases, we can come up with the following rules:
1) Marriage cannot be deemed as a violation of company policy;
2) But marriage is not a license to pry into one’s spouse’s private records or files;
3) Marriage without love but is entered into only for convenience, companionship, money, status, or title, is still a valid marriage for as long as the parties are not impelled by immoral reasons;
4) But a promise of marriage propelled by immoral reasons will subject the guilty person to liability for damages; and, more important,
5) Marriage when fueled by love, despite a great disparity in age, will not only be valid- it will also be moral.
On Valentine’s week therefore, let us heed the law’s call for respect, fidelity, devotion and morality in our relationships.
But most of all, there must be love.
Because it has been said that: “Hell is the suffering of a person who can no longer love”. (Fyodor Dostoyevsky, “The Brothers Karamazov”).
(The author is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates- a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor and a law book author. His website is etriiilaw.com).
